Mars by '99

In 1989, George H. W. Bush proposed a long-term Space Exploration Initiative. In response, NASA came up with the 90-day report, a 20-30 year project to build a space station, build a moon base, and then spend a few days on mars. The cost estimate was calculated by congress as circa $500,000,000,000 ($500 BILLION):eek:.
A competing plan was Mars Direct, outlined in 1990 by Robert Zubrin and David Baker, which wanted a 10 year, $20 Billion dollar program whose goal was to bypass the Space Station, bypass the Moon, and stay on Mars for 180 day periods on the surface. However, NASA refused it. What if all the bureaucrats grew brains and a desire to actually explore Space? Would we have reached Mars by '99?
 
There is nothing in Zubrin's program that makes it achievable in reality. Nuclear salt water rocket, shuttle derived heavy launch vehicles... development of any of them would have cost more than entire program estimates.

And SEI was supposed to be 400 to 450 billion for half a dozen of extensive manned programs from 1990. to 2020. or 2030. So that's 30 or 40 years. For a big space station, several new launch and orbital transfer vehicles, moonbase, Mars missions and establishment of Mars outpost. It wouldnt have required even doubling of NASA budget, 30-50% increase with careful management could have done it.

And USA has spent couple of trillion on Iraq war and bailout in just a couple of years.
 

RealityX

Banned
So if all the money that is and was being spent on Iraq was instead put into an advanced manned space program: building space habitats, moon bases, and traveling to mars... would such things be happening right now?
 
i see here are some major misunderstanding of Zubrin Mars Direct proposal

here the Short version
a Heavy Launch Rocket ARES (almost like ARES V)
launch a empty Return Rocket (45 Tons) to Mars (chemical, no NERVA)
there it lands and produce from Marsair and Ice - Methane and Oxygene as rocket fuel
if fuel tanks are full and automatic check show no problem

ARES Rocket launch another empty Return Rocket to Mars
then ARES rocket launch a Habitat with 4 Astronaut to Mars
they land near full Return Rocket
(the Empty Return Rocket refuels also near the landing site and give backup in case emergency)
the crew stay over 1000 day on Mars and made long distance exploration
with Rover (fueled by Methane and Oxygene)

on the end of mission the crew shot down the Habitat and
take first Return Rocket for fly back to Earth,
while the next Expedition land near second Return Rocket
(the habitat of first Expedition give backup in case emergency )
while a third Return Rocket refuels nearby also give Backup

the Mars Direct Proposal give nice option for a Mars Base
were the used Habitat are put together
 
Last edited:
I seem to remember reading in a few places that speculates if Germany won WW2, as ahead of their time they were in rocketry it's feasaible they could've been on the moon in the 50's and possibly on Mars by the 90's. Of course they'd also have a conquered world's worth of resources to draw upon.
 
I seem to remember reading in a few places that speculates if Germany won WW2, as ahead of their time they were in rocketry it's feasaible they could've been on the moon in the 50's and possibly on Mars by the 90's. Of course they'd also have a conquered world's worth of resources to draw upon.

Suppose Germany put its military and industrial resources into building undeveloped areas and did not instigate WW2. Granted, multiple POD's would be needed, but not impossible. You could have a German version of Sputnik in the forties, weather satellites in the fifties. The US, UK, USSR et. al. would be working with Germany to advance this technology.
 
I seem to remember reading in a few places that speculates if Germany won WW2, as ahead of their time they were in rocketry it's feasaible they could've been on the moon in the 50's and possibly on Mars by the 90's. Of course they'd also have a conquered world's worth of resources to draw upon.

I know that Turtledove mentioned Nazis on Mars by 2010 and a proposed manned mission to the moons of Jupiter, but this thread is about Bush Sr's America using the Mars Direct plan.
 

Archibald

Banned
In order for the SEI to work, you have first to get ride of the space shuttle, and freedom space station. none of the two can be really used for moon or mars.

Problem = the shuttle flew in 1981 and cost billions. As of 1989, you can't threw it in the dust bin (today we can !)

You can't get ride of Freedom (1984) either... even if it does not exist in 1989.
How weird.
In fact ESA and Japan were already involved (since 1985-1987) through agreements such as the Columbus module. Killing these agreements would be devastating. It nearly happened in 1993, and NASA prefered instead "reborn" Freedom as the ISS we have today.

Beyond the Shuttle / Freedom conundrum are more teething problems.

- NASA administrator is Richard Truly, an astronaut... and a shuttle pilot. He was a disaster as administrator.

- The SEI was imagined at the Johnson Space Center, by Aaron Cohen. An honorable man, alas from the Apollo era (Ie Bush-is-like-Kennedy, cost-is-not a-problem philosophy)

In order for the SEI to work you have first to cancell the shuttle in the early 70's, replace it by a capsule (keep Apollo !) then build "Freedom" in 1980-1986, from Skylab experience and hardware.

Once space-buff Bush is elected in 1989, he found the station already in orbit, and a capsule that NASA can modify for lunar or Mars missions. That's better to start from.

Next problem is cost and administrator. Forget Truly, try someone like Dan Goldin and its "faster,better, cheaper" approach.

Dan Goldin and Bob Zubrin know each other quite well; Mars direct and "faster better cheaper" might work well together.

However a Mars landing is very expensive, difficult and risky. Bush planned it for 2019, not 1999.

However you can have a Mars mission for 1999... if you accept not landing on the red planet.
Here's Zubrin takes on a cheap, pathfinder Mars flyby mission. (Athena, dated from 1996 !)

http://pdf.aiaa.org/getfile.cfm?urlX=85%26%5D0%3BU%2BDN%26S7R%20CMU%24CBQ%3A%2B64K8%26%5FOGJ%0A&urla=%25%2ARH%27%21P%2C%20%0A&urlb=%21%2A%20%20%20%0A&urlc=%21%2A0%20%20%0A&urle=%27%2B%22D%22%23PJCU0%20%20%0A

Athena is truly interesting. It is cheap, and small enough to ride onto a single Energia... or four Ariane V or Proton medium-lift boosters!
 
Last edited:
Travel times to Mars are too long. Any flybys are pointless and wasteful. As well as all other missions with couple of days spent on Mars with 9 or 12 month travel on both legs of journey.
Main reason, it cant be done that cheaply and it does and provides absolutely nothing. A very bad flags and footprints mission at best.

Second, how many times do I have to repeat. SEI would have at most required 50% increase of NASA budged. With Clinton era budgets NASA cant do anything, ever. Sorry folks. Sure, Russians could do wonders with NASA budget, but last time I heard workers in America still get payed and such, so that's kinda not a option.

Goldin was one of worst and most disastrous administrators in NASA history. Well OK, both O'Keefe and Grifin are right there behind him. And since he is trying to hard, Grifin might actually out do him and kill USA manned space effort.

Why hate for Goldin? Faster better cheaper didnt work. Budgets and programs stretching from year to year to use little funding they had, ended eating huge amounts of money because of fixed and anual costs. Program could be eating money for years without any hardware being built or seriously designed. One paper space ship after another. All trying to be cheap enough to fit in better faster cheaper doctrine, and all being recognized as undoable because of that.
X-33 failure was the main fault of Goldin's NASA. It was a fuck up and a waste of money of epic proportions. DOD can afford multibillion dollar projects that stretch year after year and get canceled after producing nothing. NASA can't.
Mars Climate Orbiter, Mars Polar Lander... quite big oopsies and faliures of Faster Better Cheaper.
And that fact that with F-B-C they try to fit much more programs and probes they can launch, have teams working on them over years spending millions and millions, and than when reality finaly kicks the door, project is canceled without anything coming out of it other than .pdf and .ppt files.

That is THE problem, from start of '90es NASA has become corparate wellfare program that rarely produces anything other that .ppt and .pdf files. And that is because your dear US congress is intentially using NASA just for that very puropose. Additional funding for Boeing and LockMar that is civillian in nature. No one is interesed or caring for science. For every polititian around the world science is at best irellevant and a waste of money. Godless and harfull to "whosever way of life" in more extreme cases.
 

ninebucks

Banned
So if all the money that is and was being spent on Iraq was instead put into an advanced manned space program: building space habitats, moon bases, and traveling to mars... would such things be happening right now?

Well no, because all the money spent on the Iraq War was money the USA didn't have. Its not like they had the money lying around, and just needed something to do with it, the Iraq War has been a source of unprecedented levels of debt.

Without the Iraq War, the USA, (and Britain), would just have lower levels of debt. Its pretty unlikely that any nation would borrow money to fund a space program.
 
Top